YOUR VIEW: Dartmouth must compromise on property taxes

Although I serve as the chairman of the Dartmouth Finance Committee, the opinions expressed in this op-ed are my own.

PETER D. FRIEDMAN

Although I serve as the chairman of the Dartmouth Finance Committee, the opinions expressed in this op-ed are my own.

I am writing to ask the voters of Dartmouth to consider voting "yes" on ballot override Questions 5 and 7. After three years on the Finance Committee, I have come to the conclusion that the town needs to pass these questions despite my inbred aversion to tax increases and my staunch support for the taxation-limiting Proposition 2½.

Clearly, asking voters to raise their taxes is a steep request and one for which they have a right to demand something in return. In this case, the voters should expect that the town continue to reform its personnel cost structure, seek improvements in efficiency, privatize where practical and most importantly develop a sustainable long-range plan.

Selling a Proposition 2½ property tax increase in Dartmouth, where voters consistently cast a skeptical eye on tax increases and demand accountability, has proven to be an extraordinarily daunting challenge. Not once has a general override passed in Dartmouth since Proposition 2½ was enacted almost 30 years ago.

This fiscal restraint has been good for the town by limiting the size of government and requiring efficiencies that would not likely otherwise have been achieved. Because inflation has historically exceeded 2.5 percent, Proposition 2½ has forced the town government to shrink relative to the size of the community.

While there are, of course, some things that Dartmouth could do better, the taxpayers have been left with a relatively lean and generally efficient government.

Unfortunately, a series of recent budget-busting expenses (largely out of the control of local government), combined with an already tight budget, has left the town financially strapped. As an example, the revision to the state formula that establishes Dartmouth's assessment for the Greater New Bedford Vocational-Technical High School has increased our annual expenses by about $1.7 million — by itself more than the amount requested in Question 5.

On top of the rapid escalation in expenses, the town has also adopted a policy of bankrolling "one-time revenue sources" in the stabilization fund in order to improve the long-term financial stability of the town. Last year alone, this policy trimmed the money available for appropriation by about $1.7 million, while at the same time providing a much-needed financial cushion.

The upcoming fiscal year is the most difficult in recent memory, and it would be most effectively addressed with a little sacrifice from everyone involved.

From the town administration we need a commitment to continue to look for efficiencies and even privatization of some services. From town employees we need a willingness to accept pay increases that can be sustained within the limits of Proposition 2½ and concessions that save administrative and health care costs. From Town Meeting, we need continued fiscal restraint, and from the taxpayers we need a modest property tax increase and an acceptance of reduced services.

Correcting Dartmouth's financial woes will not happen overnight; but with compromise, we can pull through the current crisis.

On the other hand, without compromise, everyone stands to lose: Residents will see a decaying infrastructure and reductions in services that most find unacceptable; town employees will experience layoffs and cutbacks in hours, and administrators will have their departments whittled down to the point that they cease to function.

I would ask residents to please consider voting "yes" on Question 5 (the $1.5 million general government override) and Question 7 (the temporary capital improvement debt exclusion). Although by themselves, neither of these questions will ensure the financial stability of the town, they will provide some breathing room to maintain services as the town wrestles with necessary reforms.